MORAL AND CIVIC
CHAPTER 2
More Quick Notes, Telegram: @campus_handout / https://t.me/campus_handout
Chapter Two: Approaches to Ethics
Introduction
• there are only three basic kinds of prescriptive moral
theories: teleological theories, deontological theories &
virtue-based theories
2.3. Normative Ethics
• Contain theory of obligation, theory of moral value, theory of
nonmoral value
• normative theory of obligation goal is guide us in the making
of decisions and judgments about actions in particular
situations
• Offers theories or accounts of the best way to live by
evaluate actions in a systematic way
• Includes ethical theories or approaches such as:
✓ Utilitarianism
✓ Deontology
✓ virtue ethics
✓ principlism
✓ narrative ethics
✓ feminist ethics
2.3.1. Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)
• referred as ―the end justifies the means
• stress that the consequences of an action determines the
morality or immorality of a given action
• action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral
depending on what happens because of it
➢ teleological theory
▪ the basic or ultimate criterion or standard of what is
morally right, wrong, obligatory, etc., is the non-moral
value that is brought into being
▪ an act is right if and only if it or the rule under which it
falls produces, will probably produce, or is intended to
produce at least as great a balance of good over evil
( comparative amount of good produced )
▪ the moral quality or value of actions, persons, or traits
of character, is dependent on the comparative
nonmoral value of what they bring about or try to
bring about
▪ the morally good dependent on the nonmorally good
▪ In order to know whether something is right, ought to
be done, or is morally good, one must first know what
is good in the nonmoral sense and whether the thing
in question promotes or is intended to promote what
is good in this sense.
▪ Teleologists have often been:
❖ Hedonists - identifying the good with pleasure
and evil with pain, and concluding that the right
course or rule of action is that which produces at
least as great a balance of pleasure over pain
as any alternative would
▪ there is one and only one basic or ultimate rightmaking characteristic, namely, the comparative value
2
(nonmoral) of what is, probably will be, or is intended
to be brought into being
▪ Teleologists differ on the question of whose good it is
that one ought to try to promote:
1. Ethical egoism
✓ one is always to do what will promote his
own greatest good
✓ an act or rule of action is right if and only if it
promotes at least as great a balance of good
over evil for him
✓ This view was held by Epicurus, Hobbes,
and Nietzsche
2. Ethical universalism/ utilitarianism
✓ the ultimate end is the greatest general good
✓ an act or rule of action is right if and only if it
is, or probably is, conducive to at least as
great a balance of good over evil in the
universe as a whole as any alternative
would be
❖ utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
are hedonists, but some utilitarians are not
hedonists, for example, G. E. Moore and
Hastings Rashdall, and so have been called
"Ideal" utilitarians
❖ It would also be possible, of course, to adopt
teleological theories intermediate between
ethical egoism and utilitarianism
❖ pure ethical altruist might even contend that the
right act or rule is the one that most promotes
the good of other people
➢ Deontological theories
3
▪ deny what teleological theories affirm
▪ principle of maximizing the balance of good over evil,
no matter for whom, is either not a moral criterion or
standard at all, or, at least, it is not the only basic or
ultimate one
▪ assert that there are other considerations that may
make an action or rule right or obligatory besides the
goodness or badness of its consequences -- certain
features of the act itself other than the value it brings
into existence
▪ example: the fact that it keeps a promise, is just, or is
commanded by God or by the state
2.3.2. Egoism: Ethical and psychological Egoism
1) Ethical Egoism
• focus on the consequences of actions because believe
that those consequences justify actions
• Although theory is indeed Consequentialist, it does not
qualify as utilitarian, because it doesn’t have the
common good as its ultimate end
• It is a normative theory about how we ought to behave
that advocates egoism as a moral rule
➢ The theory implies that we ought to be
✓ Selfish
✓ self-interested
➢ Example, case: Good Samaritan stopped to help a man
whose car had broken down on the freeway. The man
shot and killed the Samaritan, stole his car.
4
• Although most people would admire the Good
Samaritan for what he did the ethical egoist would
say that, the Samaritan did the wrong thing
➢ For ethical egoism there is only one rule. Look after
yourself
➢ Ethical egoist insisted that if you don’t take advantage
of a situation, you are foolish
➢ It twisted version of the Golden Rule (Do un to others
as you would have them do unto you).
✓ It is rewriting of the Golden Rule, because,
obviously, it is not always the case that you will get
the same treatment from other that you give to
them
✓ The Golden Rule usually emphasizes others, but
for the ethical egoist it emphasizes the self
➢ argument for ethical egoism follows immediately from
the theory of psychological egoism: If I am
psychologically programmed to act only in my own best
interest, then I can never be obligated to perform
altruistic
1. We all always seek to maximize our own selfinterest (definition of psychological egoism)
2. If one cannot do an act, one has no obligation to
do that act
3. Altruistic acts involve putting other people’s
interests ahead of our own (definition of altruism)
4. But, altruism contradicts psychological egoism
and so is impossible (by premises 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, altruistic acts are never morally
obligatory (by premises 2 and 4)
5
➢ suggests that other people’s interests are of no
importance
✓ from the moral point of view, only one’s own
welfare counts, and others’ does not
Notice
• Ethical egoism does not forbid one to help others,
or require one to harm others/ deliberately neglect
their interests
o If you might advance your own interests by
helping others, then by all means help others
but only if you are the main beneficiary
• Ethical egoism does not say that one ought always
to do what is most pleasurable, or enjoyable
o It suggests that one should do what will be of
long term benefit to one self like exercising,
eating healthy food
o It acknowledges that one’s own self–interest
may occasionally require pain or sacrifice
2) Psychological Egoism
• The main argument that has been used as a basis for
ethical egoism is a psychological one, an argument
from human nature.
• ethical egoism has generally presupposed what is
called psychological egoism -- that each of us is always
seeking his own greatest good - whether this is
conceived of as pleasure, happiness, knowledge,
power, self-realization, or a mixed life
6
➢ one always seeks one's own advantage or welfare, or
always does what he thinks will give him the greatest
balance of good over evil
➢ "self-love" is the only basic "principle" in human nature
➢ "ego-satisfaction" is the final aim of all activity or that
"the pleasure principle" is the basic "drive" in every
individual
❖ we must recognize this fact in our moral theory and
infer that our basic ethical principle must be that of
self-love
Notice
✓ one cannot logically infer an ethical conclusion
from a psychological premise
✓ if human nature is as described, it is simply
unrealistic and even unreasonable to propose that
we ought basically to do anything but what is for
our own greatest good
✓ psychological argument for ethical egoism is at
least reasonable, even if it is not logically
compelling
2.3.3. Utilitarianism: Producing the best consequences
• That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness
for the greatest numbers
• Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism is a universal teleological
system.
• It calls for the maximization of goodness in society—that is,
the greatest goodness for the greatest number—and not
merely the good of the agent
Note this points:
7
✓ A more promising strategy for solving dilemmas is that of
definite moral rules.
✓ Principles are important in life
• Example: if you act on the principle of keeping
promises, then you adhered to a type of moral
theory called deontology
✓ In consequentialist ethics the center of value is the outcome
or consequences of the act
• Example: example, a Teleologists would judge
whether lying was morally right or wrong by the
consequences it produced
Utilitarianism Types
Classic Utilitarianism
o In our normal lives we use utilitarian reasoning all the time
o seeds of utilitarianism were sewn by the ancient Greek
philosopher Epicurus:
✓ he stated that “pleasure is the goal that nature has ordained
for us; it is also the standard by which we judge everything
good.”
✓ his theory focused largely on the individual’s personal
experience of pleasure and pain
✓ he advocated a version of ethical egoism
o Nevertheless, Epicurus inspired a series of eighteenthcentury philosophers who emphasized the notion of general
happiness—that is, the pleasing consequences of actions
that impact others and not just the individual
o classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the
writings of two English philosophers and social reformers:
➢ Jeremy Bentham
➢ John Stuart Mill
8
Jeremy Bentham: Quantity over Quality
• main features of utilitarianism, both of which Bentham
articulated:
▪ The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect):
✓ rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by
the goodness or badness of the results that flow
from it
✓ the end counts
✓ end justifies the means
▪ The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect)
✓ the only thing that is good in itself is some specific
type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness,
welfare)
• Hedonistic utilitarianism
➢ views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only
evil
➢ act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than
pain or prevents pain
➢ an act is wrong if it either brings about more pain than
pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring
➢ hedonic calculus:
✓ scheme for measuring pleasure and pain
✓ quantitative score for any pleasure or pain
experience is obtained by summing the seven
aspects of a pleasurable or painful experience,
which are:
• intensity
• duration
• certainty
• nearness
• fruitfulness
9
• purity
• extent
✓ Adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for
each possible act gives hedons (units of
happiness).
✓ The amount of hedons would enable us to
decide which act to perform
• In Bentham’s utilitarianism,
▪ there is only one principle to apply: Maximize pleasure
and minimize suffering
▪ morality really is about reducing suffering and promoting
benevolence
▪ It is scientific: Simply make quantitative measurements
and apply the principle impartially
John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity
• Bentham’s successor, John Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish
happiness from mere sensual pleasure
• His version of the theory is often called eudaimonistic
utilitarianism
✓ from the Greek eudaimonia, meaning “happiness”
o eudaimonistic utilitarianism
▪ defines happiness in terms of
➢ certain types of higher-order pleasures or
satisfactions
➢ minimal suffering
▪ two types of pleasures:
1. lower, or elementary
▪ eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and
sensuous titillation
▪ the lower pleasures are more intensely
gratifying
10
▪ lead to pain when overindulged in
2. higher
▪ high culture, scientific knowledge, intellectuality,
and creativity
▪ higher pleasures tend to be more long term,
continuous, and gradual
▪ higher, or more refined, pleasures are superior
to the lower ones: “It is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to
be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
o The point is: the quality of the higher
pleasures is better
• what is better pleasure? The formula:
▪ Happiness is not a life of rapture; but moments
made up of
✓ few and transitory pains
✓ many and various pleasures, with a decided
predominance of the active over the passive
✓ foundation of the whole
▪ not to expect more from life than it is
capable of bestowing.
• Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the concept of
“pleasure” by emphasizing higher qualities such as
▪ knowledge, intelligence, freedom, friendship,
love, and health
▪ In fact, his litmus test for happiness really has
little to do with actual pleasure and more to do
with a non-hedonic cultivated state of mind
Act- And Rule-Utilitarianism
• two classical types of utilitarianism:
11
▪ Act-utilitarianism
✓ an act is right if and only if it results in as much
good as any available alternative
✓ act-utilitarians, such as Bentham
✓ practical problem with act-utilitarianism
▪ First: we cannot do the necessary
calculations to determine which act is the
correct one in each case, for often we
must act spontaneously and quickly
▪ Second: it seems to fly in the face of
fundamental intuitions about minimally
correct behavior
▪ Rule-utilitarianism
✓ An act is right if and only if it is required by a
rule that is itself a member of a set of rules
whose acceptance would lead to greater utility
for society than any available alternative
✓ Human beings are rule-following creatures
✓ we don’t have time to decide which action
produce more utility so we need a more
specific rule that passes the test of rational
scrutiny
• Utilitarianism might be construed as offering a threestep action formula for action:
1. I must project the consequences of each
alternative option open to me (e.g., taking different
kinds of actions or taking no action)
12
2. Calculate how much happiness, or balance of
happiness over unhappiness, is likely to be
produced by anticipated consequences of each
action or none.
3. Select that action which, on balance, will produce
the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest
number of people affected
The Strengths of Utilitarianism
• It has three very positive features
➢ First
▪ it is a single principle, an absolute system with
a potential answer for every situation: Do what
will promote the most utility!
▪ have a simple, action-guiding principle that is
applicable to every occasion
➢ Second
o utilitarianism seems to get to the substance of
morality
o Rather it has a material core: we should
promote human (and possibly animal)
flourishing and reduce suffering
▪ It has two virtues:
✓ First: It gives us a clear decision
procedure in arriving at our answer
about what to do
✓ Second: it appeals to our sense that
morality is made for people and that
morality is not so much about rules as
13
about helping people and alleviating
the suffering in the world
➢ Third
▪ it is particularly well suited to address the
problem of posterity—namely, why we should
preserve scarce natural resources for the
betterment of future generations
▪ utilitarians have one overriding duty: to
maximize general happiness
▪ As long as the quality of life of future people
promises to be positive, we have an obligation
to continue human existence, to produce
human beings, and to take whatever actions
are necessary to ensure that their quality of life
is not only positive but high
Criticism of Utilitarianism
standard objections to utilitarianism
Problems with Formulating Utilitarianism
• The first set of problems occurs in the very formulation
of utilitarianism: “The greatest happiness for the
greatest number.”
• Notice that we have two “greatest” things in this
formula: “happiness” and “number.”
• Whenever we have two variables, we invite problems
of determining which of the variables to rank first when
they seem to conflict
14
• should we worry more about total happiness or about
highest average?
The Comparative Consequences Objection
• it seems to require a superhuman ability to look into
the future and survey a mind-boggling array of
consequences of actions
• we normally do not know the long-term consequences
of our actions
• life is too complex and the consequences go on into
the indefinite future.
The Consistency Objection to Rule-Utilitarianism
• An often-debated question about rule-utilitarianism is
whether, when pushed to its logical limits, it must either
become a deontological system or transform itself into
act-utilitarianism
• it is an inconsistent theory that offers no truly
independent standard for making moral judgment
• Imagine that following the set of general rules of a ruleutilitarian system yields (x) hedons (positive utility
units) However, We could always find a case where
breaking the general rule would result in additional
hedons without decreasing the sum of the whole
✓ It would seem that we could always improve on
any version of rule-utilitarianism by breaking the
set of rules whenever we judge that by doing so
we could produce even more utility than by
following the set
The No-Rest Objection
15
• According to utilitarianism, one should always do that
act that promises to promote the most utility
• But there is usually an infinite set of possible acts to
choose from
• Following utilitarianism, I should get little or no rest,
and, certainly, I have no right to enjoy life when by
sacrificing I can make others happier. Peter
✓ For example, when I am about to go to the cinema
with a friend, I should ask myself if helping the
homeless in my community wouldn’t promote more
utility
The Publicity Objection
• It is usually thought that moral principles must be
known to all so that all may freely obey the principles
• But utilitarians usually hesitate to recommend that
everyone act as a utilitarian, especially an actutilitarian, because it takes a great deal of deliberation
to work out the likely consequences of alternative
courses of action
• Thus, utilitarianism seems to contradict our
requirement of publicity.
The Relativism Objection
• people accuse rule-utilitarianism of being relativistic
because it seems to endorse different rules in different
societies
• But this is not really conventional relativism because
the rule is not made valid by the community’s choosing
it but by the actual situation
16
Criticism of the Ends Justifying Immoral Means
• utilitarian ends might justify immoral means
• There are many dastardly things that we can do in the
name of maximizing general happiness: deceit, torture,
slavery, even killing off ethnic minorities
• The general problem can be laid out in this argument:
1. If a moral theory justifies actions that we
universally deem impermissible, then that moral
theory must be rejected
2. Utilitarianism justifies actions that we universally
deem impermissible.
3. Therefore, utilitarianism must be rejected
The Lying Objection
• William D. Ross has argued that utilitarianism is to be
rejected because it leads to the counterintuitive
endorsement of lying when it serves the greater good
• If it turned out that lying really promoted human
welfare, we’d have to accept it. But that’s not likely.
Our happiness is tied up with a need for reliable
information (that is, truth)
The Justice Objection
• Utilitarian suggest that we should reconsider whether
truth telling and personal integrity are values that
should never be compromised
• The situation is intensified, though, when we consider
standards of justice that most of us think should never
be dispensed with
17
✓ imagine that you are a utilitarian physician who has
five patients under your care. All need different
kind of organ transplant.
▪ Through a utility-calculus, you determine that,
without a doubt, you could do the most good
by using a healthy man organs to save your
five other patients.
✓ This careless views of justice offend us
• The very fact that utilitarians even consider such
actions— that they would misuse the legal system or
the medical system to carry out their schemes—seems
frightening
• Justice is just one more lower-order principle within
utilitarianism.
• Judgment calls like these highlight utilitarianism’s
difficulty in handling issues of justice
Generally
• utilitarianism is a moral theory which takes into account
how the consequences of an act will affect all the
parties involved
• The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the
principle of utility
✓ morally right action is the one that produces the
best overall consequences with regard to the utility
or welfare of all the affected parties.
✓ Jeremy Bentham’s: right act or policy is the one
that causes ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest
18
number’ – that is, maximize the total utility or
welfare of the majority of all the affected parties
Altruism
• In altruism an action is right if the consequences of that
action are favorable to all except the actor
• psychological altruism:
➢ we have an inherent psychological capacity to
show benevolence to others
➢ Psychological altruism holds that all human
action is necessarily other centered and other
motivated
• Altruists are people who:
✓ act so as to increase other people’s pleasure
✓ They will act for the sake of someone else even if
it decreases their own pleasure and causes
themselves pain
▪ differentiate egoistic and altruistic desires
➢ One’s desire is egoistic if (and only if) it concerns
(what one perceives to be) the benefit of oneself
and not anyone else
➢ one’s desire is altruistic if (and only if) it concerns
(what one perceives to be) the benefit of at least
someone other than oneself
▪ Altruists reject the theory of psychological egoism and
argue instead that humans are instinctively benevolent.
✓ instinctive benevolence is the feature of our
human nature which is the basis of our altruistic
moral obligations
19
2.3.4. Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialist)
• rightness or wrongness of moral action is determined,
at least partly with reference to formal rules of conduct
rather than consequences or result of an action
• It is referred as “the means justifies the end”
• In many respects, deontological moral theory is
diametrically the opposite of utilitarianism
✓ It is a duty based and according to this theory,
the consequences or results of our action have
nothing to do with their rightness or wrongness
• It is coined as “deontics”
• It emphasis on the intentions, motives, moral principles
or performance of duty rather than results
• German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, classified
dozens of duties under three headings:
1. Concerning our duties towards God
▪ there are two kinds:
I. a theoretical duty to know the existence
and nature of God
II. a practical duty to both inwardly and
outwardly worship God.
2. Concerning our duties towards oneself
▪ There are two sorts:
i. duties of the soul, which involve
developing one's skills and talents
ii. duties of the body, which involve not
harming our bodies
3. Concerning our duties towards others
20
a. Absolute duties
▪ absolute duties, which are universally
binding on people
▪ three sort
➢ avoid wronging others
➢ treat people as equals
➢ promote the good of others
b. Conditional duties
▪ involve various types of agreements
▪ the principal one of which is the duty is
to keep one's promises
The Divine Command Theory
• ethical principles:
✓ are simply the commands of God
✓ derive their validity from God’s commanding them
• Without God, there would be no universally valid
morality
• analyze the DCT into three separate theses:
1. Morality originates with God
2. Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and
moral wrongness means “being against the will of
God.”
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine
will, not on independently existing reasons for
action, no further reasons for action are necessary
• four propositions:
1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the
command of God
21
2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is
commanded by God
3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is
permitted by the command of God
4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong,
required, or permitted
• an act is right in virtue of being permitted by the will of
God, and an act is wrong in virtue of being against the
will of God
Rights Theory
• Most generally, a "right" is a justified claim against
another person's behavior
• Correlativity of rights and duties: Rights and duties are
related in such a way that the rights of one person
imply the duties of another person.
• John Locke:
✓ argued that the laws of nature mandate that we
should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty or
possessions
• Thomas Jefferson:
✓ United States Declaration of Independence
authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three
foundational rights
➢ Life
➢ Liberty
➢ pursuit of happiness
✓ Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained
that we deduce other more specific rights from
22
these, including the rights of property, movement,
speech, and religious expression
• four features traditionally associated with moral rights
❖Rights are
1. Natural - not invented or created by governments
2. Universal - do not change from country to country.
3. Equal - rights are the same for all people,
irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.
4. Inalienable - one cannot hand over his/her rights to
another person
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Recall deontology
✓ Not consequences which determine the rightness or
wrongness of an act, but, rather, the intention of the person
who carries out the act
✓ The emphasis is on the correctness of the action,
regardless of the possible benefits or harm it might produce
✓ There are some moral obligations which are absolutely
binding, no matter what consequences are produced
The Categorical Imperative
• Kant’s duty-based theory is emphasizes a single principle of
duty
• There is a more foundational principle of duty that
encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, selfevident principle of reason that he calls the “categorical
imperative”
✓ different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on
some personal desire that we have
✓ which means best achieve our ends
23
•
•
•
•
•
24
o For example, “If you want to get a good job, then
you ought to go to college.”
✓ categorical imperative simply mandates an action,
irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as “You
ought to do X.”
Kant emphasis the idea of good intension
o nothing was good in itself except a “good will”
o Intelligence, judgment and all other facets of the human
personality are perhaps good and desirable, but only if
the will that makes use of them is good
o Will - the uniquely human capacity to act according to
the concepts behind laws, that is, principles presumably
operating in nature
Kant a will could be good without qualification only if it always
had in view one principle:
❖ whether the maxim of its action could become a
universal law
there was just one command or imperative that was
categorical, that is, one that presented an action as
necessary of itself, without regard to any other end
Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act in
such a way that the maxim or general rule governing our
action could be a universal law
✓ Kant thought that when a moral action is being
considered, one should ask the following questions;
❖ what would happen if everyone in the world did this, all
the time? And would that be the kind of world I’d like to
live in?
Kant gives at least three versions or formulations of the
categorical imperative
•
•
•
•
25
✓ His categorical imperative is a based on the idea that
there are certain objective ethical rules in the world
✓ Kant’s version is possibly the most well-known, and
relies heavily on his idea that all people are
fundamentally capable of reasoning in the same manner
and on the same level
✓ Kantianism focuses more on intent and action in itself,
as opposed to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism
person cannot decide whether conduct is "right," or moral,
through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached
a priori, using pure practical reason
✓ Moral questions are determined independent of
reference to the particular subject posing them
✓ Kant's theory is hinged by his beliefs on autonomy and
his formulation of categorical imperatives. He believed
that, unless a person freely and willingly makes a choice,
their action has no meaning (and certainly no moral
value
✓ Autonomy - one’s own beliefs, independence, and
government: acting without regard for anyone else
✓ Heteronomy - acting under the influence of someone
else
Kant believed that each individual is rational and capable of
making free choices; thereby relies on autonomous thinking
Kant thought that every man, if using reason when looking
at moral dilemmas, would agree with what he called the
Categorical Imperative
moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to
any particular conditions, including the identity of the
person making the moral deliberation/ The Intent behind the
action matter
formulation of the categorical imperative:
1. The Principle of Universality
• "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law
without contradiction"
• Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two
subsets
➢ Perfect duties
✓ blameworthy if not met and are the basic requirements
for a human being
✓ not to act by maxims that result in logical
contradictions when we attempt to universalize
them.
✓ Example: moral proposition: "It is permissible to steal"
would result in a contradiction upon universalization
✓ Example of perfect duty is the avoidance of suicide
➢ Imperfect duties
✓ do not achieve blame, rather they receive praise if
completed
✓ they are circumstantial duties
✓ Example: cultivating talent
✓ is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally
binding
✓ imperfect duties are those duties that are never truly
completed
o perfecting the ability to write and produce works
2. The Principle of Humanity as an End, Never as Merely a
Means
• not use humanity of ourselves or others as a means to an
end
26
• People, as rational beings, are ends in themselves and
should never be used merely as means to other ends
• We may use physical things as means, but when we use
people simply as means, as in slavery, prostitution, or
commercial exploitation, we degrade them and violate
their innermost beings as people
• Example Suicide would be wrong since one would be
treating his/her life as a means to the alleviation of their
misery
• Person has perfect duty not to use the humanity of
themselves or others merely as a means to some other
end
3. The Principle of Autonomy
• we should consider ourselves to be members in the
universal realm of ends
• every rational being must so act as if he were through his
maxim always a legislating member in the universal
kingdom of end
• Kant presents the notion of the hypothetical Kingdom of
Ends , We should consider our actions to be of
consequence to everyone else in that our actions affect not
only ourselves but that of others
main problem with the categorical imperative - its rigidity
• Example: It suggest to tell a truth to a potential attacker
where a person is found just knowing he/she will harm him
and having a relation with the person in attack
• Morality is simply too complex, too full of exceptions for
these theories to ever fully work
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
27
• The term prima facie means “at a first sight” or “on
the surface”
✓ duties that dictate what we should do when other
moral factors are not considered
Example:
▪ An example of a prima facie duty is the duty to
keep promises Unless stronger moral
considerations override, one ought to keep a
promise made
• prima facie duties are duties that generally obligate us;
that is, they ordinarily impose a moral obligation
but may not in a particular case because of
circumstances
✓ actual duty - action that one ought to perform
after considering and weighing all the prima
facie duties involved
✓ When faced with a situation that presents
conflicting prima facie duties, Ross tells us, the
more obligatory, our actual duty. The actual duty
has the greatest amount of prima facie
rightness over wrongness
Example:
▪ Suppose you observe an elderly neighbor collapse
with what might be a heart attack. You are a block
away from the nearest phone from which you could
call for help. A child’s bike is close at hand and no one
but you and the collapsed elderly person is around.
One or more duties seem to say "take the bike and go
28
call for help," while others seems to say "taking the
bike is wrong." On the "don't take" side are justice and
non-injury (it seems unjust to the owner of the bike
and an injury to him or her). On the "take" side lies
harm-prevention. It is widely known that people die
from heart attacks that are not treated quickly. (Note
that this seems to be a case of harm-prevention rather
than beneficence in the strict sense.) The solution
might be to recognize that in this circumstance, harmprevention takes priority over what on the surface
looks like injustice and injury. So the actual duty is
probably to take the bike and get help. Besides, it
should not be difficult to make up the temporary bike
loss to its owner, that is, there might be an actual
duty of reparation
• W.D. Ross, Ross’s list the following categories of prima facie
duties
1. Duties of Fidelity - duty to keep promises and the
obligation not to lie
2. Duties of Reparation - duty to make up for the injuries
one has done to others. the duty to compensate others
when we harm them
3. Duties of Gratitude - duty to thank those who help us.
Example, I am duty bound to do all I can help this
individual, who in the past had acted so selflessly toward
me.
4. Duties of Justice - one act in such a way that one
distributes benefits and burdens fairly. Ross himself
emphasizes the negative aspect of this duty. the duty of
29
justice includes the duty, insofar as possible, to prevent an
unjust distribution of benefits or burdens
5. Duties of Beneficence - duty to improve the conditions
of others
6. Duties of Self-improvement - to act so as to promote
one’s own good
7. Duties of Non-maleficence - duty of non-injury. duty not
to harm others physically or psychologically
✓ he does insist that we acknowledge and willingly
accept the seven categories without argument. His
appeal for their acceptance does not rely primarily on
reason and argument but on intuition
• Note - The term "duty" in "prima facie duty" is slightly
misleading. The prima facie duties are understood as
guidelines, not rules without exception. If an action does
not correspond to a specific guideline, one is not necessarily
violating a rule that one ought to follow. However, not
following the rule one ought to follow in a particular case is
failing to do one's (actual) duty
30